Homosexuality and bullying derail thread

Jason

Also, just noticed that I mistakenly have been writing 'Patterson' instead of 'Robertson.' Not sure where I got that from (probably misread an article), but I was indeed referring to Robertson in all the above posts.

Jason

Jason said:

Your answer is a non-answer, @Dennis1. Posting a bunch of quotes from Wikipedia doesn't explain why you keep bringing up Iran and Islam in a discussion about homosexuality and bullying in the US. It's so wildly off-topic that it further reinforces my suspicion that you have some kind of obsessive prejudice against Islam. If you're trying to suggest that only Muslims persecute gays, I think you're being highly selective or else conveniently forgetting places like Uganda, where Christian prejudices have resulted in harsh legal penalties for gays and violence against the gay community.

This thread, however, which is already a derail from the OP, isn't about defending Islam or condemning America, it's about the treatment of gays in the US. Maybe you should try sticking to it rather than making even more irrelevant comments.

Maybe it's true that "America is probably the most enlightened country in the world on those subjects" (although I think some European countries have valid claims to this as well), but that tolerance is still in it's infancy, and things like this still routinely happen: Man Perceived as Gay Beaten While Walking Home; Halloween fun turns violent when attackers target men dressed in drag; 'We were attacked because we were holding hands'. (All this from where I live, which is arguably one of the most tolerant and gay-friendly cities in the US). While this kind of persecution isn't 'state sanctioned,' it still exists and I think we should continue to confront and challenge it until that's no longer the case. And part of doing that is confronting and challenging the views expressed by people like Roberson.

Dennis1

Invincible_summer said:

@Dennis1 - Even if you don't agree with "socialism" (since when was being socially liberal automatically "socialist?"), I think it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that this site is pushing some Leninist agenda.
Sure, there are some of us on this site who are definitely left-leaning, but we acknowledge that these are our own political opinions - far from being some sort of universal truth that all forum members (or people) should abide by.

Hi Invincible summer: I think you got in to the thread a little late. The original question was "Is Trungpa a Bodhisattva" From this it morphed into Lenin is a Bodhisattva"
Now I know enough about Lenin to say no, he definitely was not. Jason and Betaboy and others took exception with this and now you enter in with a question which has nothing to do with the conversation. I suppose it's the stratified nature of the venue.

Please let me answer your question. I am socially liberal. Ludwig von Mises is socially liberal, many people I admire are socially liberal-like the Dalai Lama. I am not saying that coming down on the side of people or being against prejudice and persecution or being willing for people to be themselves without harassment is wrong or Socialist.
Lenin was a Socialist and a mass murderer, who took over Russia by force because he didn't like the results of their free election. Lenin was not a Bodhisattva. That is the subject you have entered in to.

Furthermore, my objection to the idea that Lenin was not a Bodhisattva has resulted in my being followed around to other threads and misconstrued (by more than one person). In the UAW that is called ganging up and bullying and is actually the only interior rule (among union workers) which is enforced by all of the members. No ganging up. And if you need any proof of my statement you need only consider your question and my honest answer.

P.S. There was another subject about the Burmese Buddhists attacking Muslims in Burma. I supported the Buddhists. I know (because I am well read in Dar ul Islam)
that the Burmese Buddhists will all be made to leave or die. It is only natural they defend themselves. How can this be construed as non-liberal. And yet, because of the Lenin was a Bodhi thread I have had to defend my views on this and that has been blown way out of proportion. I have requested several times that this cease and we return to Buddhist threads. My standing up is necessitated by my views of the 1st Patamita-Liberality-which enjoins us to stand up against wrong teachings. I would be happy to end this whole thread.

Now Jason and Betaboy want to pretend they have no intention to bully me. OK let them quit following me around and doing petty misconstructions of my words.
I am a very standard Tibetan Buddhist. I have been a devoted Buddhist for 48 years.
I don't think this fine site should be perverted to some political purposes which are unworthy. Do You?

robot

@Dennis1
I still don't get where you are coming up with the view that Burmese Buddhists must leave or die, or defend themselves.
Muslims make up 4% of the population there. 89% are Buddhist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Burma
It is the Muslims that are under attack and are being forced to flee for their lives.
Is this not true?
Why should I not see your position on this a perversion of the truth for some unknown political purpose?
Please clear this up for me.

Jason

robot said:

@Dennis1
I still don't get where you are coming up with the view that Burmese Buddhists must leave or die, or defend themselves.
Muslims make up 4% of the population there. 89% are Buddhist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Burma
It is the Muslims that are under attack and are being forced to flee for their lives.
Is this not true?
Why should I not see your position on this a perversion of the truth for some unknown political purpose?
Please clear this up for me.

Good luck with that. Don't try too hard, though, or he'll start accusing you of persecuting and bullying him as well.

robot

Jason said:

robot said:

@Dennis1
I still don't get where you are coming up with the view that Burmese Buddhists must leave or die, or defend themselves.
Muslims make up 4% of the population there. 89% are Buddhist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Burma
It is the Muslims that are under attack and are being forced to flee for their lives.
Is this not true?
Why should I not see your position on this a perversion of the truth for some unknown political purpose?
Please clear this up for me.

Good luck with that. Don't try too hard, though, or he'll start accusing you of persecuting and bullying him as well.

Now, what fun would it be if he didn't?

Linc

Got this gem over email:

Dennis1 said:

I have enjoyed your site. I have been pleased to converse on Buddhist topics. However, I have noticed that there is a definite tendency to promote Socialism and slam American Liberty. I recognize that this is your site-not mine. If things are as you wish them to be I will simply desist. Thank you for your site and for the privilege of participating and being free and unobstructed in my views.

Please let me know if I have become a burden and I will desist. Namaste

I had some thoughts on this:

You equate homosexuality with pedophilia, then email the gay owner of the site with a complaint. Chalk this one up to social consequences: piss off.

-Lincoln

I think we're all set here.